Part 36 (1/2)

11. The testimony of Tavernier is doubtless correct if understood as referring to the whole complex of buildings connected with the mausoleum. He visited Agra several times. He left India in January, 1654, returning to the country in 1659. Work on the Taj began in 1632, and so appears to have been completed about the close of, 1653 (Tavernier, _Travels_, transl. Ball, vol. i, pp. xxi, xxii, 25, 110, 142, 149). The latest dated inscription, that of the calligraphist Amanat Khan at the entrance to the domed mausoleum, was recorded in the twelfth year of the reign, A.H. 1048, equivalent to A.D. 1638-9.

That year may be taken as the date of the completion of the mausoleum itself, as distinguished from the great ma.s.s of supplementary structures.

12. Various records of the cost differ enormously, apparently because they refer to different things. If all the buildings and the vast value of the materials be included, the highest estimate, namely, four and a half millions of pounds sterling, in round numbers, is not excessive (_H.F.A._, 1911, p. 415) The figures are recorded with minute accuracy as 411 lakhs, 48,826 rupees, 7 annas, and 6 pies. A _karor_ (crore) is 100 lakhs, or 10 millions.

13. The enclosure occupies a s.p.a.ce of more than forty-two acres.

14. This statement, though commonly made, is erroneous. The building is named the 'a.s.sembly house' (jama'at khana), or 'guest-house'

(mihman khana) and was intended as the place for the congregation to a.s.semble before prayers, or on the anniversaries of the deaths of the Emperor Shah Jahan or his consort. Taj Mahal (Muh. Latif, _Agra_, p.

113). Of course, it also serves as an architectural balance for the mosque.

15. The gardens of the Taj have been much improved since the author's time, and are now under the care of a skilled European superintendent, and full of beautiful shrubs and trees. The author's measurements of the quadrangle seem to be wrong. Different figures are given by Moin-ud-din (_Hist. of the Taj_, p. 29) and Fergusson (ed. 1910, vol. ii, p. 313). No official survey is available.

16. The white marble that forms the substance of the building came, Mr. Keene thinks, from Makrana near Jaipur, but according to Mr.

Hacket (_Records of the Geographical Survey of India_, x. 84), from Raiwala in Jaipur, near the Alwar border [note]. The account of these marbles given in the _Rajputana Gazetteer_, 1st ed. (ii. 127) favours Mr. Keene's view' (_N.W.P. Gazetteer_, 1st ed., vol. vii, p. 707).

The ornamental stones used for the inlay work in the Taj are lapis lazuli, jasper, heliotrope, Chalcedon agate, chalcedony, cornelian, sarde, plasma (or quartz and chlorite), yellow and striped marble, clay slate, and nephrite, or jade (_Dr. Voysey, in Asiatic Researches_, vol. xv, p. 429, quoted by V. Bail in _Records of the Geological Survey of India_, vii. 109). Moin-ud-din (pp. 27-9) gives a longer list, from the custodians' Persian account.

17. There is some exaggeration in this statement. Shah Jahan's concern was with his wife's tomb, and his fortified palaces, more than with 'the cities'.

18. Sleeman's talk about Austin de Bordeaux is wholly based on his misreading of _Ustan_ for _Ustad_, meaning 'Master', in the Persian account, which names Muhammed-i-isa Afandi (Effendi) as the chief designer. He had the t.i.tle of Ustad, and some versions represent Muhammad Sharif, the second draughtsman, as his son. Muhammad, the son of isa ('Jesus'), apparently was a Turk. He had the Turkish t.i.tle of 'Effendi', and the Persian MS. used by Moin-ud-din a.s.serts that he came from Turkey. The same authority states that Muhammad Sharif was a native of Samarkand.

Austin de Bordeaux was wholly distinct from Muhammad-i-isa, Ustad Afandi, and there is no reason to suppose that he had anything to do with the Taj. Sleeman's story about his work at Agra and his death comes from Tavernier (i. 108, transl. Ball: see next note). Austin was in the service of Jahangir as early as 1621, and probably came out to India from Persia in 1614. He is described as an engineer (_ingenieur_), and is recorded to have made a golden throne for Jahangir (_J.R.A.S._, 1910, pp. 494, 1343-5). Sleeman's misreading of _ustad_ as _ustan_, and his consequent blunders, have misled innumerable writers. In cursive Persian the misreading is easy and natural. He took Ustan as intended for 'Austin'. Certain marks in the garden on the other side of the river indicate the spot where Shah Jahan had begun work on his own tomb. Aurangzeb, as Tavernier observes, was 'not disposed to complete it' (see _A.S.R._, iv. 180).

For a summary of the controversy concerning the alleged share of Geronimo Veroneo in the design of the Taj, see _H.F.A._, 1911, pp.

416-18. Personally, I am of opinion, as I was more than twenty years ago, that 'the incomparable Taj is the product of a combination of European and Asiatic genius'. That opinion makes some people very angry.

19. I would not be thought very positive upon this point, I think I am right, but feel that I may be wrong. Tavernier says that Shah Jahan was obliged to give up his intention of completing a silver ceiling to the great hall in the palace, because Austin de Bordeaux had been killed, and no other person could venture to attempt it.

Ustan [_sic_] isa, in all the Persian accounts, stands first among the salaried architects. [W. H. S.] Tavernier's words are, 'Shah Jahan had intended to cover the arch of a great gallery which is on the right hand with silver, and a Frenchman, named Augustin de Bordeaux, was to have done the work. But the Great Mogul, seeing there was no one in his kingdom who was more capable to send to Goa to negotiate an affair with the Portuguese, the work was not done, for, as the ability of Augustin was feared, he was poisoned on his return from Cochin.' (_Tavernier_, transl. Ball, vol. i, p. 108. ) The statement that Austin had 'finished the palace at Delhi, and the mausoleum and palace of Agra' is not warranted by any evidence known to the editor.

20. Akbar erected his works on the site of an older fort, named Badalgarh, presumably of Hindu origin, 'which was of brick, and had become ruinous.' No existing building within the precincts can be referred with certainty to an earlier date than that of Akbar. The erection began in A.H. 972, corresponding to A.D. 1564-5, and the work continued for eight (or, according to another authority, four) years, costing 3,500,000 rupees, or about 350,000 sterling. The walls are of rubble, faced with red sandstone. The best account is the article by Nur Baksh, ent.i.tled 'The Agra Fort and its Buildings', in _A.S. Ann. Rep._, 1903-4, pp. 164-93.

21. It is difficult to understand how men like the Marquis of Hastings and Lord William Bentinck could have been guilty of such barbarous stupidity. But the fact is beyond doubt, and numberless officials of less exalted rank must share the disgrace of the ruin and spoliation, which, both at Agra and Delhi, have destroyed two n.o.ble palaces, and left but a few disconnected fragments. Fergusson's indignant protests (_History of Indian and Eastern Architecture_, ed.

1910, vol. ii, p. 312, &c.) are none too strong. Sir John Strachey, who was Lieutenant-Governor of the North-Western Provinces in 1876, is ent.i.tled to the credit of having done all that lay in his power to remedy the effects of the parsimony and neglect of his predecessors.

The buildings which remain at both Agra and Delhi are now well cared for, and large sums are spent yearly on their reparation and conservation. The credit for the modern policy of reverence for the ancient monuments is due to Lord Curzon more than to any one else.

22. This date is erroneous. The inscription is dated A.H. 1063, in the 26th year of Shah Jahan, equivalent practically to A.D. 1653. It is given in full, with both text and translation, in _A.S. Ann. Rep._ for 1903-4, p. 183. It states that the building was erected in the course of seven years at a cost of 300,000 rupees, which = 33,750, at the rate of 2_s_. 3_d_. to the rupee current at the time. Errors on the subject disfigure most of the guide-books and other works commonly read.

23. The beauty of the Moti Masjid, like that of most mosques, is all internal. The exterior is ugly. The interior deserves all praise.

Fergusson describes this mosque as 'one of the purest and most elegant buildings of its cla.s.s to be found anywhere', and truly observes that 'the moment you enter by the eastern gateway the effect of its courtyard is surpa.s.singly beautiful'. 'I hardly know anywhere', he adds, 'of a building so perfectly pure and elegant.'

(_Ind. and E. Arch._, ed. 1910, vol. ii, p. 317. See also _H.F.A._, p. 412, fig. 242.)

24. I would, however, here enter my humble protest against the quadrille and tiffin [_scil._ lunch] parties, which are sometimes given to the European ladies and gentlemen of the station at this imperial tomb; drinking and dancing are, no doubt, very good things in their season, even in a hot climate, but they are sadly out of place in a sepulchre, and never fail to shock the good feelings of sober-minded people when given there. Good church music gives us great pleasure, without exciting us to dancing or drinking; the Taj does the same, at least to the sober-minded. [W. H. S.] The regulations now in force prevent any unseemly proceedings. The gardens at the Taj, of Itimad-ud-daula's tomb, of Akbar's mausoleum at Sikandara, and the Ram Bagh, are kept up by means of income derived from crown lands, aided by liberal grants from Government.

25. The anthor's curiously meagre description of the magnificent mausoleum of Akbar is, in the original edition, supplemented by coloured plates, prepared apparently from drawings by Indian artists.

The structure is absolutely unique, being a square pyramid of five stories, the uppermost of which is built of pure white marble, while the four lower ones are of red sandstone. All earlier descriptions of the building have been superseded by the posthumous work of E. W.

Smith, a splendidly ill.u.s.trated quarto, ent.i.tled, _Akbar's Tomb, Sikandarah, Agra_, Allahabad Government Press, 1909, being vol. x.x.xv of A. S. India. Work had been begun in the lifetime of Akbar. The lower part of the enclosing wall of the park dates from his reign.